The attitude of the scientist should never be to deny a priori an Event. It should rather be to declare, if that does not have, at present, a scientific explanation. Science, in short, has done less to deny that claim.
From the days of the ill-fated "cold fusion" of Fleischmann and Pons (1989), the scientific community is divided. A minority (which for convenience we will call "the Mad") insists that something is going on, in those experiments, and that something, though much lower than initially announced, was worth studying. A large majority (Sani) states, however, the total inconsistency of the phenomenon. In the next two decades, the information channels of Matti have repeatedly shown abnormal energy emissions, under different conditions and are difficult to control with varying degrees of reliability. Only factor common to almost all of these anomalies was that occurred in hydrogenated or deuterated metals: palladium and nickel, for example. These metals act as "sponges" of hydrogen (or deuterium) capture hydrogen atoms in the cage formed by their nuclei and absorb the single electron among those that form the structural links of the metal itself (technically, the valence electrons).
Why do we talk about issues "abnormal"? Because the power produced in these events is much higher than expected from chemical reactions. Nuclear reactions, then? No, because simple calculations and experimental evidence on 'naked nuclei' (not part of a solid structure) show that such nuclear reactions are so improbable as not to provide any practical effect. A nice dilemma, then. Unless they think of a giant scam trans-national Matti, or their total incompetence in carrying out the measurements. For the benefit of Sani, played until recently that these issues were often elusive and difficult to repeat, very intense, perhaps, but largely unpredictable. Therefore, difficult to categorize as a fact. Facts should be distinguished from events: the former are repeatable and controllable, the second place and nothing else. From Galileo onwards, the scientist takes care of the first and second hesitate to speak of. Throughout history, however, many events have been traced back to the category of events: lightning, meteors, comets, volcanoes, earthquakes. Even the Biblical manna (it seems). For this reason, the attitude of the scientist should never be to deny a priori an Event. It should rather be to declare, if any, that it does not have at present a scientific explanation. Science, in short, has done less to deny that claim.
Turning to the specific situation, until a few years ago, was that the anomalous emission of energy is presented as events (a bit 'like the Virgin Mary that weep tears of blood), which exposes them to doubt their authenticity ( Without a doubt it is real, an event can be simulated and manipulated) or otherwise practically impossible to ascertain the cause-effect chain, which includes an essential condition, the repeatability of the experiment. Today, the situation is radically changed. Studies by Sergio Focardi (Department of Physics, University of Bologna), first in collaboration with Francis Piantelli (University of Siena), then continued alone have led to a moderateemission of energy from Hydrogenated Nickel, , which can not beexplained in simple chemical terms. Recent times, a device invented and patented by Andrea Rossi, always based on the nickel hydrogen, has enabled us to produce a much higher heat output, which varies from 25 to 40 Kwatt, compared with a release of electrical power in the order hundreds of watts. To be clear: the power needed to keep burning some incandescent bulbs, you get that absorbed 10 and 20 washing machines. The duration of the emissions over the course of ten hours, and none has yet found a trace of exhaustion. The effect is reproducible and verifiable.
In practice, we have moved from the Event Fact from "is" the "is measured." A group of researchers from the Department of Physics, University of Bologna (Ennio Bonetti, Enrico Campari, Giuseppe Levi, Mauro Villa and I), as well as Sergio Focardi (retired as Professor Emeritus) can now study the equipment so Rossi continued and deepened. There are offers for the first time, a real opportunity to see clearly. Determine precisely how the phenomenon takes place (hence the importance of repeatability and controllability), it is expected that, sooner or later emerge and also why. Since it is established, what makes it fascinating is that the effect does not exist, to date, a convincing explanation: what is the "fuel" that produces excess energy? How much time will be consumed? Nuclear energy really got to do? This is the curiosity of the scientist, the first and best spring possible toward a serious investigation. Then there is the possibility of a huge economic and environmental impact. What more? For once, I think really the case to listen to Matti.
.
. I've converted the links: